Read a book last week - called the Rule of Four. The blurb had great reviews by NYT..combination of Umberto Eco & Dan Brown it said.
It had a reasonable start, combining an inquiry into history in a collegial setting- youthful, curious, hopeful and stuff. But somewhere in the middle the effect of a single piece of fiction having two authors started to show and I lost interest, though I finally crept to the last page.
Looking back, it seemed as though each of the authors, individually sought to incorporate things they liked appreciated or cared for in their life experiences. The girlfriends preference of perfumes, the roommates love for jazz over rock, the strongest of them obsessing over tidiness, the friends hatred for salon dried hair and many more such nuances dint seem to come from the same mind..The common train of thought was missing.
The first time I have got fooled by an NYT review.
It had a reasonable start, combining an inquiry into history in a collegial setting- youthful, curious, hopeful and stuff. But somewhere in the middle the effect of a single piece of fiction having two authors started to show and I lost interest, though I finally crept to the last page.
Looking back, it seemed as though each of the authors, individually sought to incorporate things they liked appreciated or cared for in their life experiences. The girlfriends preference of perfumes, the roommates love for jazz over rock, the strongest of them obsessing over tidiness, the friends hatred for salon dried hair and many more such nuances dint seem to come from the same mind..The common train of thought was missing.
The first time I have got fooled by an NYT review.
